LogixLoops
Four systems, worked through end to end: the constraint, the architecture we would choose, the alternatives we would rule out and why. These are reference builds rather than client engagements, and we say so on every one of them.
The constraint and what it costs. The architecture we would choose instead, and the two or three alternatives we would rule out, named, with the reason they lose. Then the trade the decision makes, because every architecture is a trade and the ones that claim otherwise are hiding it.
Four are published here, across four industries: financial trading, healthcare, logistics and enterprise identity. They are written the way we write an architecture brief on a real engagement, which is the point. This is the document you would receive after discovery, in the format you would receive it.
When client work replaces them, the standard is the same one we would want applied to us. A name only with written permission, otherwise the industry and the date. Figures only where the client has confirmed them. Nothing that reads as a measured result unless somebody measured it.

A reference build: how we would take a decade-old trading system off a shared database and onto an event-sourced, edge-deployed architecture without pausing the market.

A reference build: consolidating a dozen patient-facing apps into one portal, with IoT vitals arriving over MQTT and a HIPAA-shaped control set designed in from the start.

A reference build: streaming telematics into a routing model that re-optimises the whole fleet on a fixed cycle, and a dispatcher console that can draw ten thousand vehicles without dropping frames.

A reference build: one zero-trust identity authority federating a group's inherited directories, so offboarding somebody takes one action instead of eighteen.
That is what discovery produces. Same format, your constraints, and it is yours to keep whether or not you hire us.